Re: [GIT PULL] Greybus driver subsystem for 4.9-rc1

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:36:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:09:49PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > Given that it's never a good idea to keep subsystems out of the mainline
> > kernel, I've put together this pull request that adds the greybus driver
> > layer to drivers/greybus/.  Because this was 2 1/2 years of work, with
> > many many developers contributing, I didn't want to flatten all of their
> > effort into a few small patches, as that wouldn't be very fair.  So I've
> > built a git tree with all of the changes going back to the first commit,
> > and merged it into the kernel tree, just like btrfs was merged into the
> > kernel.
> 
> > Unless people point out some major problems with this, I'd like to get
> > it merged into 4.9-rc1.
> 
> I'm extremely concerned that these patches have *never* seen upstream
> review, and this pull request gives no real opportunity for people to
> make a judgement regarding the code, as many relevant parties have not
> been Cc'd.

As I said, I will send a set of simple patches, I wanted to get this out
as soon as possible and other things came up today.  Will do it in the
morning, sorry.

> From a quick scan of the git tree, I can see code (that isn't even
> placed under staging/) for which I have fundamental objections to as a
> maintainer, and has not been Cc'd to a relevant list.
> 
> For example, I see commit 5a450477311fbfe2 ("greybus: timesync: Add
> timesync core driver"). This states that it directly accesses the ARMv7
> architected timer, though it's unclear as to precisely what it's doing
> since it introduces an (undocumented) compatible string, and what should
> be an unnecessary devicetree property.
> 
> That's never gone to the linux-arm-kernel mainline list, myself or Marc
> (as maintainers of the arch timer driver), nor has the binding seen any
> review on the devicetree mailing list.

Hm, odd, I thought we had Rob review all of the device tree bindings,
but maybe the timesync stuff missed him.  And timesync is "odd" to say
the least, wait until you see the firmware side of it :)

Let me post the patches tomorrow and then we can review them.

thanks,

greg k-h